Bombay High Court
Samrat Ramkrishna Waghmare vs State Of Maharashtra & 3 Others on 25 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp5121-03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.5121 of 2003
Shri Samrat Ramkrishna Waghmare,
aged about 29 years,
Occ. Junior Engineer,
Muicipal Council, Bhadrawati,
R/o Gautam Nagar Behind Petrol Pump,
Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur. ... ... Petitioner.
-Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Ministry of Urban
Development Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Director,
Nagar Palika Administration Directorate
Building of Government Transport Services,
Sir Pockhanwala Marg, Worli, Mumbai -25.
3. Chief Officer,
Nagar Parishad,
Bhadrawati, Dist. Chadrapur.
4. District Collector, Chandrapur,
Dist. Chandrapur. ... ... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.K. Sable, counsel for petitioner.
Mrs. Naik, AGP for respondent nos. 1,2 & 4.
Mr. Shelat, counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 25th April, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard advocate S.K. Sable for petitioner, advocate Shelat for
respondent no.3 and Mrs. Naik, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4.
2 wp5121-03
2. Petitioner prays for creation of a permanent post of junior
engineer and to regularise him against it.
3. In the backdrop of this prayer, after hearing respective counsel we
find that on 28.2.2002 respondent no.3 Municipal Council issued
advertisement and invited candidates for the post of junior engineer for six
months, specifically on contract basis. Personal interviews were conducted
on 1.3.2002. Petitioner attended that interview, was found best and
therefore came to be appointed as per order dated 6.3.2002. He was
continued for about 20 months and thereafter he was terminated.
4. Municipal Council has pointed out that a superior post namely
post of Deputy Engineer has been sanctioned on its establishment by State
Government and it does not have any sanction for post of junior engineer. In
the light of sanction given and educational qualifications required for filling
in post of Deputy Engineer, as petitioner did not possess graduate degree
(B.E.), another candidate has been selected after adhering to proper
procedure.
5. The judgment of constitution bench of Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 (Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs.
Umadevi and Ors.) clearly covers the controversy. The petitioner cannot seek
regularization on the strength of advertisement which notified a vacancy only
3 wp5121-03
for six months and appointment was on contract basis. Several eligible
candidates who could have been better than petitioner, might not have
applied in response to such advertisement. Recruitment to all posts in public
employment on permanent basis has to be after proper advertisement and
upon competitive selection process.
6. The State government did not sanction post of junior engineer
and petitioner who does not possess B.E. degree could not compete for the
post of Deputy Engineer. Respondent no.3 Municipal Council does not need
any junior engineer, as Deputy Engineer is working with it. In this backdrop,
prayers made are misconceived.
7. During hearing advocate Shelat has fairly invited our attention to
order dated 29.1.2004 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5127/2003. There
also a post of Junior Engineer with present Municipal Council only figured as
petitioner Manish Bhandarkar sought sanction to the post of Junior Engineer
in said Municipal Council. During hearing court found that Manish
Bhandarkar was appointed on honorarium basis and had no vested right of
appointment. He had also sought a direction for creation of post of Junior
Engineer and for regularisation. But his services were terminated by order
dated 15.12.2003. By very same order the service of partitioner had also
been terminated. The Division Bench then directed that in future if Municipal
4 wp5121-03
Council proceeds to appoint any person as junior engineer on ad-hoc basis,
due preference would be given to petitioner.
8. We find that interest of justice can be met with by issuing similar
direction in favour of present petitioner. If Municipal Council at any time in
future finds it necessary to avail services of a junior engineer, it shall publish
advertisement accordingly and if petitioner applies in response thereto, he
shall be given due preference in view of services already put in by him.
With these directions, we find ourself unable to extend any other
benefit to petitioner. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged.
No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
